No influence of surgical volume on patients' health-related quality of life after esophageal cancer resection

Oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide and is therefore a major global health challenge. The two major subtypes of oesophageal cancer are oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), which are epidemiologically and biologically distinct. OSCC accounts for 90% of all cases of oesophageal cancer globally and is highly prevalent in the East, East Africa and South America. OAC is more common in developed countries than in developing countries. Preneoplastic lesions are identifiable for both OSCC and OAC; these are frequently amenable to endoscopic ablative therapies. Most patients with oesophageal cancer require extensive treatment, including chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy and/or surgical resection. Patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer are treated with palliative chemotherapy; those who are human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive may also benefit from trastuzumab treatment. Immuno-oncology therapies have also shown promising early results in OSCC and OAC. In this Primer, we review state-of-the-art knowledge on the biology and treatment of oesophageal cancer, including screening, endoscopic ablative therapies and emerging molecular targets, and we discuss best practices in chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, surgery and the maintenance of patient quality of life.

Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in the surgical treatment of patients with esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is currently the eighth most common cancer worldwide. Improvements in operative techniques and neoadjuvant therapies have led to improved outcomes. Resection of the esophagus carries a high risk of severe complications and has a negative impact on health-related quality of life (QOL). The aim of this study was to assess which patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to measure QOL after esophagectomy for cancer. A comprehensive search of original articles was conducted investigating QOL after surgery for esophageal carcinoma. Two authors independently selected relevant articles, conducted clinical appraisal, and extracted data (PJ and JS). Out of 5893 articles, 58 studies were included, consisting of 41 prospective and 17 retrospective cohort studies, including a total of 6964 patients. These studies included 11 different PROMs. The existing PROMs could be divided into generic, symptom-specific, and disease-specific questionnaires. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ C-30) along with the EORTC QLQ-OESophagus module OES18 was the most widely used; in 42 and 32 studies, respectively. The EORTC and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) questionnaires use an oncological module and an organ-specific module. One validation study was available, which compared the FACT and EORTC, showing moderate to poor correlation between the questionnaires. A great variety of PROMs are being used in the measurement of QOL after surgery for esophageal cancer. A questionnaire with a general module along with a disease-specific module for assessment of QOL of different treatment modalities seem to be the most desirable, such as the EORTC and the FACT with their specific modules (EORTC QLQ-OES18 and FACT-E). Both are developed in different treatment modalities, such as in surgical patients. With regard to reproducibility of current results, the EORTC is recommended.

Health-related quality of life after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

PURPOSE

Transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is a surgical standard therapy for esophageal carcinoma. The aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) in mid- and long-term survivors.

METHODS

Patients with cancer-free survival of at least 12 months after esophageal resection for cancer were identified from a prospectively maintained database. EORTC questionnaires were sent out to assess health-related general (QLQ-C30) and esophageal cancer-specific (QLQ-OES18) quality of life (QOL). A numeric score was calculated in each conceptual area and compared with reference data.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven patients completed the self-rated questionnaires. They were 121 men and 26 women with a mean age of 63.4 (21-83) years; median FU was 39 (12-139) months. Global health status, functional scales, and symptom scores were significantly reduced compared with healthy reference populations. Also, there was no significant impact of tumor histology, neoadjuvant treatment, minimally invasive approach, or duration of follow-up on HRQL. However, more than half of the patients reported a HRQL similar to that of the healthy reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the major psychosocial and physiological impacts of the disease, more than 50 % of mid- and long-term survivors of the Ivor Lewis procedure for esophageal cancer have a HRQL similar to that of the healthy reference population.

Quality of life after esophagectomy for cancer

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive and physically and emotionally devastating disease. It has one of the poorest survival rates among all malignant tumors, mainly due to late symptom presentation and early metastatic dissemination. Cure is possible through extensive surgery, typically followed by a long recovery period, affecting general well-being, as well as basic aspects of life, such as eating, drinking and socializing. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a multidimensional concept assessing symptoms and functions related to a disease or its treatment from the patient's perspective. HRQL is a fundamental part of treatment in surgical oncology, particularly in esophageal cancer. This review assesses the scientific data regarding some HRQL aspects after esophageal cancer surgery, for example, postoperative recovery time, determinants of postoperative HRQL and long-term HRQL.

Systematic review of health-related quality of life after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

This study is aimed to assess the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in comparison with es-tablished norms, and to evaluate changes in HRQL during the different stages of follow-up after esophageal resection. A systematic review was performed by searching medical databases (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library) for potentially relevant studies that appeared between January 1975 and March 2011. Studies were included if they addressed the question of HRQL after esophageal resection for esophageal cancer. Two researchers independently performed the study selection, data extraction and analysis processes. Twenty-one observational studies were included with a total of 1282 (12-355) patients. Five studies were performed with short form-36 (SF-36) and 16 with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 (14 of them also utilized the disease-specific OES18 or its previous version OES24). The analysis of long-term generic HRQL with SF-36 showed pooled scores for physical, role and social function after esophagectomy similar to United States norms, but lower pooled scores for physical function, vitality and general health perception. The analysis of HRQL conducted using the Global EORTC C30 global scale during a 6-mo follow-up showed that global scale and physical function were better at the baseline. The symptom scales indicated worsened fatigue, dyspnea and diarrhea 6 mo after esophagectomy. In contrast, however, emotional function had significantly improved after 6 mo. In conclusion, short- and long-term HRQL is deeply affected after esophagectomy for cancer. The impairment of physical function may be a long-term consequence of esophagectomy involving either the respiratory system or the alimentary tract. The short- and long-term improvement in the emotional function of patients who have undergone successful operations may be attributed to the impression that they have survived a near-death experience.

The volume-outcome relation in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study was undertaken to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the relation between procedural volume and outcome of esophagectomies. A systematic search was carried out to identify articles investigating effects of hospital or surgeon volume on short-term and long-term outcomes published between 1995 and 2010. Articles were scrutinized for methodological quality, and after inclusion of only high-quality studies, a meta-analysis assuming a random effects model was done to estimate the effect of higher volume on patient outcome. Heterogeneity in study results was evaluated with an I(2) -test and risk of publication bias with an Egger regression intercept. Forty-three studies were found. Sixteen studies met the strict inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis on hospital volume and postoperative mortality and 4 studies on hospital volume and survival. The pooled estimated effect size was significant for high-volume providers in the analysis of postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89-2.80) and in the survival analysis (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30). The meta-analysis of surgical volume and outcome showed no significant results. Studies in which the results were adjusted not only for patient characteristics but also for tumor characteristics and urgency of the operation showed a stronger correlation between hospital volume and mortality. Also, studies performed on data from the United States showed higher effect sizes. The evidence for hospital volume as an important determinant of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery is strong. Concentration of procedures in high-volume hospitals with a dedicated setting for the treatment of esophageal cancer might lead to an overall improvement in patient outcome.

Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Establishing preferences for surgery is paramount to preoperative patient counselling. This study aimed to prioritize and compare preferences of patients and doctors towards surgery for oesophagogastric cancer, to aid the counselling process.

METHODS

A discrete-choice questionnaire containing hypothetical scenarios was designed to test patient preferences for six treatment attributes: mortality, morbidity, quality of life (QoL), cure rate, hospital type and surgeon's reputation. The survey was mailed to all patients who underwent oesophagogastric cancer resection from 2008 to 2009 at two teaching hospital sites. All doctors at these sites with previous experience in counselling patients for cancer surgery were also identified and presented with the survey. Results were analysed using a random-effects probit regression model. Spearman correlation was used to compare participants' implicit choices from the discrete-choice scenarios (their true preferences) with their explicit choices from the direct ranking of preferences (their perceived preferences).

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients and 90 doctors completed the survey. Some 15 per cent of patients and 31 per cent of doctors based their choices solely on QoL. In order of importance, patients based their implicit responses on QoL (β = 1.19), cure rate (β = 0.82), morbidity (β = - 0.70), surgeon's reputation (β = 0.60), mortality (β = - 0.57) and hospital type (β = 0.26). Doctors similarly indicated QoL (β = 1.14) and hospital type (β = 0.31) as highest and lowest preferences respectively, but placed far greater emphasis on mortality (β = - 0.80) than morbidity (β = - 0.35). Implicit and explicit preferences correlated only for morbidity and surgeon's reputation in the patient cohort.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians may better meet patients' expectations and facilitate informed decision-making if QoL, cure rate and morbidity are emphasized foremost. A similar study employing preoperative patients is warranted for further clarification of preferences.

The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches to the management of early esophageal cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, management of early cancer (stages 0-IIA) has comprised esophagectomy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent efforts to improve outcomes and minimize side-effects have focussed on minimally invasive, endoscopic treatments that remove lesions while sparing healthy tissue. This review assesses their safety and efficacy/effectiveness relative to traditional, non-endoscopic treatments for early esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed using Cochrane guidelines. Bibliographic databases searched to identify relevant English language studies published in the last 3 years included: PubMed (i.e., MEDLINE and additional sources), EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS EED, DARE and HTA) databases, EconLit and Web of Science. Web sites of professional associations, relevant cancer organizations, clinical practice guidelines, and clinical trials were also searched. Two independent reviewers selected, critically appraised, and extracted information from studies.

RESULTS

The review included 75 studies spanning 3124 patients and 10 forms of treatment. Most studies were of short term duration and non-comparative. Adverse events reported across studies of endoscopic techniques were similar and less significant compared to those in the studies of non-endoscopic techniques. Complete response rates were slightly lower for photodynamic therapy (PDT) relative to the other endoscopic techniques, possibly due to differences in patient populations across studies. No studies compared overall or cause-specific survival in patients who received endoscopic treatments vs. those who received non-endoscopic treatments.

DISCUSSION

Based on findings from this review, there is no single "best practice" approach to the treatment of early esophageal cancer.